Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

They have no rights over his property.

This is a fantasy.

I've had a hand in running several businesses over the past 30 years.

I've had the jack hole code inspector come over to complain that my window signage was over the limit because it covered over 20% of the window space. He actually took out a tape measure and figured out the percentage of sign that covered each pane of glass.

I've had the city complain about the sign above the store. They wanted us to get an engineer and build the sign to withstand a cat 3 hurricane. So I went with the existing sign base and vinyl lettering.

I wanted to start a car wash however the regulations about recycling water were insane.

Believe what you want. However the truth is much different than what you believe.

No. Those people had no rights over your property. Simply because a law exists does not mean that it is either moral or right. Unjust laws have existed before.

reply to post by NavyDoc


What specifically is "quite incorrect" and why is it so? Why don't you make an actual argument to something and offer some evidence to counter my claim?

You're mixing apples and oranges and calling them pears, health insurance-wise, and I'm fairly certain you know it.

Classic catastrophic plans usually focused on a) medical costs over over a certain amount or b) costs due to duration of or type of illness. That was a different type of coverage from the standard plans available.

Health care plans generally include(d) regular doctor's office visits, pharmaceuticals and hospitalization.

You made a claim that health insurance was "a new thing." I demonstrated that it wasn't. Did you read any part of the information I provided besides what you could strain out to support whatever you're attempting to argue and then hypocritically charge me with what you're doing. Quoting disconnected material to generate screen scroll and make it look like you're making a cogent point?

Demonstrate how paying the costs of your own healthcare subsidizes the costs of others. Cite a section of the ACA.

reply to post by windword


Birth control does not save lives, it kills. How can you claim that someone who doesn't go through pregnancy had their life saved?
In fact show me just one statistic.

reply to post by Bone75


For women suffering some other issues, it can certainly help their health. Considerably.

For rpegnancy related issues...not quite a life saver. you are right.

Bone75
reply to post by windword

 

Birth control does not save lives, it kills. How can you claim that someone who doesn't go through pregnancy had their life saved?
In fact show me just one statistic.

edit on 5-2-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)

How does birth control kill, again, exactly? Are you positing that every egg and every sperm are sacred?

If so, then I was the most prolific serial murderer in history, at least in my teenage years ...

Surely that's not what you're claiming, right?

reply to post by Gryphon66

A fertilized egg is a human life. No way around that one.

Bone75
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

A fertilized egg is a human life. No way around that one.

Not everyone agrees with your opinion, so yeah, there are ways "around that one."

BUT ... we'll agree to disagree there.

Your statement was that BIRTH CONTROL kills. BIrth control methods attempt to PREVENT fertilization.

How do these birth control methods that prevent fertilization kill? Thank you in advance for your response.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Show me a birth control pill that is 100% effective at preventing ovulation, or one that is highly effective without hindering a fertilized egg's ability to implant in the uterus and I'll be all for it.

And by the way, a fertilized egg is a human life. That's not an opinion, that is a fact.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Bone75

 

For women suffering some other issues, it can certainly help their health. Considerably.

True, but are there treatments available that deal with those issues directly, or is birth control the only way?

Bone75
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Show me a birth control pill that is 100% effective at preventing ovulation, or one that is highly effective without hindering a fertilized egg's ability to implant in the uterus and I'll be all for it.

And by the way, a fertilized egg is a human life. That's not an opinion, that is a fact.

You're limiting birth control to birth control pills? That's an excessively narrow definition. But, given that, please explain how birth control pills (as limited by your example) kill.

A fertilized egg is not a human life. A human is well-defined legally. It is your opinion, which you are welcome to, but your repeated assertion is not factual in any scientific, rational or generally accepted way.

But, that's red herring. How do birth control pills kill, please?

reply to post by Gryphon66

By altering the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant.
If I purposely put my dog on a 3 foot chain when his bowl is 5 feet away, am I not killing my dog?

Bone75
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

By altering the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant.
If I purposely put my dog on a 3 foot chain when his bowl is 5 feet away, am I killing my dog?

You keep changing the parameters of what you mean. So now, only "those birth control pills that alter the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant" is the birth control that kills?

Your statement is constantly evolving into something with no real consistency and no actual evidence.

You offer zero evidence for your claim "birth control kills."

It is, as I said earlier, your opinion, your belief, your contention. It is not a widely-held position, and you provide no evidence.

I suggest, under those circumstances, that you or your impregnable partner, refrain from using "those birth control pills that alter the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant" and allow others to do as their conscience, opinions and beliefs require.

That's fair, isn't it?

Gryphon66

Bone75
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

By altering the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant.
If I purposely put my dog on a 3 foot chain when his bowl is 5 feet away, am I killing my dog?

You keep changing the parameters of what you mean. So now, only "those birth control pills that alter the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant" is the birth control that kills?

Your statement is constantly evolving into something with no real consistency and no actual evidence.

You offer zero evidence for your claim "birth control kills."

It is, as I said earlier, your opinion, your belief, your contention. It is not a widely-held position, and you provide no evidence.

I suggest, under those circumstances, that you or your impregnable partner, refrain from using "those birth control pills that alter the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg can't implant" and allow others to do as their conscience, opinions and beliefs require.

That's fair, isn't it?

Translation:
"Oh crap, this guy actually knows what he's talking about. Revert to default position. "

The best way to learn is to do the research yourself. I challenge you to look into the different forms of contraceptives and how they work. Then come back here, and you tell me which methods don't kill fertilized eggs.

reply to post by Bone75

Birth control does not save lives, it kills. How can you claim that someone who doesn't go through pregnancy had their life saved?
In fact show me just one statistic.

Every year one million teenage girls die or are injured because of pregnancy or childbirth, according to Save the Children. In a new report, the children's charity warns that girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than women in their 20s.

More than 25,000 girls under 18 are married every day, according to the report. Many quickly fall pregnant before their bodies have sufficiently developed.

"The issue of children having children - and dying because their bodies are too immature to deliver the baby - is a global scandal," said Save the Children's chief executive Justin Forsyth.

"This is a tragedy not just for those girls but also for their children - babies are 60% more likely to die if their mother is under 18.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Bearing a child is still one of the most dangerous things a woman can do. It’s the sixth most common cause of death among women age 20 to 34 in the United States. If you look at the black-box warning on a packet of birth control pills, you’ll notice that at most ages the risk of death from taking the pills is less than if you don’t take them—that’s because they’re so good at preventing pregnancy, and pregnancy kills.

In the United States today, about 15 women die in pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 live births. That’s way too many, but a century ago it was more than 600 women per 100,000 births. In the 1600s and 1700s, the death rate was twice that: By some estimates, between 1 and 1.5 percent of women giving birth died. Note that the rate is per birth, so the lifetime risk of dying in childbirth was much higher, perhaps 4 percent. www.slate.com... tury.html

Giving Life is the Leading Cause of Death for Women in South Sudan

Here's a link to an extensive categorization of leading causes of death in women. Women with heart disease or liver disease, cancer, etc., need to NOT GET PREGNANT to save their lives. LINK

reply to post by windword

Women with heart disease or liver disease, cancer, etc., need to NOT GET PREGNANT to save their lives.

Some people care more about the life of sperm or eggs than they do for a woman life. It is a sad fact of a screwed up society.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Right???? And the most ironic part of this whole thing is that these "Bible Thumping Christians" are claiming "RELIGION". However, the Bible itself is all but silent on the issue. It has laws about pork and shellfish and how to trim your beard, but nothing on birth control or abortion. (Except Numbers 5, where abortion is performed by a priest if the husband is unsure if "it's his")

In the meantime abortion was rampant, infanticide was common place, and herbs that prevented pregnancy were being harvested and traded along with frankinsence and myrrh!

No, it's not really a penny. It's a coin from the ancient North African city of Cyrene, just up the road from Benghazi in modern-day Libya (gotta tie Benghazi into every story, dontcha know). The emblem on the coin is the plant silphium, the city's biggest export. It was popular throughout the Mediterranean as a spice and medicine, so much so that the Cyrenians harvested it to extinction.

It's chief medicinal use was as an abortifacient, stimulating the uterus to expel its contents. There are a lot of other herbs with similar effects--angelica, the cohoshes, pennyroyal--and their uses have been known for centuries. Medical texts mention other tried and true methods of dropping off unwanted passengers as well.
www.dailykos.com...

There is no biblical doctrine about childbirth, abortion or birth control. There is only the early fathers of the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant leaders who give us religious doctrine on female concerns.

St. Augustine, De genesi ad litteram, 9, 5-9
"I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes the purpose of procreation. If woman was not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?"

Even though they grow weary and wear themselves out with child-bearing, it does not matter; let them go on bearing children till they die, that is what they are there for.
Martin Luther, Works 20.84

This ^^^^ is the foundation for the doctrine that Hobby Lobby is claiming "religious exemption" And none of it is based in their own holy book!

reply to post by windword


I think you missed their so called mandate from god for their reasoning.

It is so interesting that somehow from that story they come up with BC is bad.

You know if they really think God cares why don't they have faith that God will punish as he/she sees fit and worry about their own sinning.

windword
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Right???? And the most ironic part of this whole thing is that these "Bible Thumping Christians" are claiming "RELIGION".

You know good and darn well that I do not argue the topic of abortion from a religious position. You'll never hear me say abortion is wrong because God said so. Religion isn't necessary to make a strong case against it.

Well, maybe we'll get a new hobby store with better prices and a better attitude. The manager of Hobby Lobby runs when he sees me. I bet I could out knit him any day.

Please, people, stop having children. Thank you.

reply to post by Bone75

You know good and darn well that I do not argue the topic of abortion from a religious position. You'll never hear me say abortion is wrong because God said so. Religion isn't necessary to make a strong case against it.

Well, I don't really think that you can, but, at any rate, this thread is about Hobby Lobby's "religious" objections to the mandate.